Vijay Manjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The accused/applicant has moved this Second Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.124/2025 registered at Police Station – Lailunga, District –Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of the BNS.

¶16

2

¶17

2. First Bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 in MCRC No.725/2026.

¶18

3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11.05.2025, at about 19:30 hours, in Village-Karmanacha, Baghdipa, Barkhoria, the applicant/accused has assaulted the deceased Sahadev by means of Iron crowbar (सब्बल), causing his death. Based on report, FIR was registered against the applicant and he has been arrested for the aforesaid offence/crime.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as there is no direct evidence against the applicant. The evidence/material collected by the prosecution is weak type of evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 13.05.2025. Out of 18 witnesses, not a single witness has been examined before the trial Court till today, trial will take much more time for its final adjudication, therefore, applicant may be released on bail.

¶20

5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application, submitting that a named First Information Report (FIR) has been registered against the applicant, alleging that he committed the murder of the deceased/Sahadev by using an iron crowbar (sabbal). The said iron crowbar has been recovered from this applicant as per seizure memo. There are four eye-witnesses who saw the applicant proceeding towards the place of occurrence and thereafter returning from the said place. Looking to the nature

¶21

3

¶22

of offence, applicant may not be released on bail.

¶23

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶24

7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that iron crowbar has been recovered from this applicant

¶25

Final Order /Judgment:

¶26

8. as per seizure memo, there are four eye-witnesses who saw the applicant proceeding towards the place of occurrence and thereafter returning from the said place, further considering that first bail application of applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court and there is no substantial change in the circumstance of this case, I am not inclined to allow this second bail application at this stage.

¶27

9. Accordingly, the second application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected . However, considering the detention period of the applicant, trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial.

¶28

10. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶29

CC as per rules.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶32

J.

Vijay Manjhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Manjhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Saraf Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sourabh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shadika Begum Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P. Gurushekhran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rcs Lorry Services Vs State of Chhattisgarh